Retrieve the valid expense categories required for logging expenses. Use this list to ensure your entries always use a recognized category.
The valid category names. Expenses must use one of these.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Valid category names' implies a read-only return of allowed values, and the one-sentence description is accurate but sparse; it doesn't mention ordering, completeness, or whether any additional context like locale affects the result.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core output ('valid category names') and immediately followed by the use case. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what will be returned and why it matters. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and use the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so param semantics are not needed; the baseline for zero-param tools is 4. The description adds the semantic context that these categories are the allowed set for expenses.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the tool's resource (valid category names) and its role as a constraint for expenses. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get,' but the tool name and phrasing make the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, though none of the siblings overlaps with category listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The statement 'Expenses must use one of these' clearly tells an agent to call this tool when an expense needs a valid category. It provides context for when this tool is relevant, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.